Childs, Bill; Taylor, Lyndal --- "You Can Lead A Horse To Water...' Introducing Online Education" [2001] UTSLawRw 10; (2001) 3 University of Technology Sydney Law Review 141

• Part One—The Mentor and Mentoree
• Part Two—The Mentoring Process
• Part Three—UTS Online
• Part Four—Insights about the Use of Online tools
• Where to From Here?

‘You Can Lead A Horse To Water...’ Introducing Online Education[1]

Bill Childs[2] and Lyndal Taylor[3]

IN 2001 the University of Technology, Sydney introduced UTS Online, designed to facilitate flexible delivery of courses online. Utilising Blackboard software, it is user friendly from the both the teacher and student perspectives.

An early adopter of this technology was Bill Childs in the Faculty of Law. He had developed courses online using Top Class, the earlier UTS system. He offered to support Lyndal Taylor in her adoption of the online tool for her courses.

This paper explores a number of issues that have resulted from that mentoring process. It has made the participants more conscious of the latent and overt benefits of mentoring for both parties. The dialogue that developed instigated a discourse about the methodology and validity of online education. These insights are the subject of this paper.

The paper is broken into four parts. The first part provides a profile of both Bill and Lyndal. This is necessary to understand the mentoring process. The second part focuses on the mentoring relationship. The third part gives detail about UTS Online. Finally, insights as to the ways to best utilise the cyber environment to enhance student learning will be shared.

Part One—The Mentor and Mentoree

THE MENTOR

Bill has taught (part time and full time) in the UTS Faculty of Law for some 15 years. His first involvement with the use of computers in teaching occurred in the late 1960s whilst working on an early CAI project at the University of Toronto. In 1997 he converted a law subject, which he taught in the traditional classroom/lecture model, to a wholly online mode of delivery, using Top Class. At present he makes extensive use of Blackboard software (re-badged as UTS Online) in the wholly online delivery of 11 subjects.

Bill is engaged in researching the impact of web-based teaching and learning systems on students and teachers. He is particularly interested in the impact that initial contact with the technology and software systems has on teaching and learning outcomes.

THE MENTOREE

Lyndal has worked in a number of law faculties including Queensland University of Technology, Macquarie University, University of Sydney and UTS. What is perhaps unique to her experience is working in two law schools with the most significant external law programs in Australia. With a background in distance education, the move to technology was an incremental step. When at QUT and Macquarie, Lyndal had offered on-campus intensives for distance students, developed tapes of tutorials, trialled a voice mail tutorial box, email chat lists and developed paper resources such as course outlines and reading materials. When at University of Sydney, Lyndal adopted web-based information delivery. With this background, she approached UTS Online enthusiastically.

In spite of the fact that Bill and Lyndal have trialled the use of technology over a period of years, it is important to recognise that the use of on-line education is in fact quite recent. In perusing Le Brun and Johnstone, published in 1994, no mention is found of online education.[4]

Part Two—The Mentoring Process

Acknowledging that this was peer, collegial support, we considered that the model that best suited that style of learning was found in the adult learning literature. Knowles[5] cites five foundation stones of modern adult learning theory:

• Adults are motivated to learn.
• Adults’ orientation to learning is life centered.
• Experience is the richest source for adult learning.
• Adults have a deep need to be self directing.
• Individuals differences among people increase with age.

A key tenet of the mentoring process was the importance of providing support and developing a safe learning environment. This was informed by the research of Maslow [6]and Rogers. Rogers developed a student-centred approach to learning based on five ‘basic hypotheses’:[7]

• We cannot teach another person directly; we can only facilitate his (sic) learning.
• A person learns significantly only those things which he perceives as being involved in the maintenance of, of enhancement of, the structure of self.
• Experience which, if assimilated, would involve a change in the organization of self tends to be resisted through denial or distortion of symbolisation.
• The structure and organization of self appears to become more rigid under threat; to relax its boundaries when completely free from threat.
• The education situation that most effectively promotes significant learning is one in which (a) threat to the self of the learner is reduced to a minimum, and (b) differentiated perception of the field is facilitated.

This way of thinking melded well with Bill’s confidence-building theory: that nothing saps a student’s (or teacher’s) confidence more than getting it wrong first time around.

When people use a new piece of computer software for the first time, they tend to be apprehensive. In the course of Bill’s investigations of the impact of web-based teaching and learning systems on students and teachers, he has observed students (and teachers) who have a real fear of computers, particularly when confronted by the need to use software or systems they have not used before. This fear appears to be based on both lack of experience and lack of confidence.

In their report An Evaluation of Information Technology Projects in University Learning, Alexander and McKenzie annotated Ramsden et al’s observations that good teachers: (1) recognise the importance of context, and adapt their teaching accordingly; and (2) know how to modify their teaching strategies according to the particular students, subject matter and learning environment, as follows:

This point also relates to the design of the learning experience, and reflects the importance of designing the information technology project to allow for the diversity of students...[8]

Alexander and McKenzie included in that design process planning for the fact that students will often have different views of learning, different levels of information technology skills, and varied access to the technology used.

Bill’s confidence-building theory seeks to minimise the possibility of early failure (from a student’s or teacher’s point of view) by:

• providing detailed (graphic rich) hard copy and online written instructions
• having initial hands-on (if possible one on one) computer laboratory practical demonstrations
• providing interactive trial exercises, designed to lead students progressively through the system
• creating minimum competencies in the use of each of the online facilities required to complete the subject and the assessments, thus building confidence.

A key to adult learning is that adults are self-directed learners who are motivated to learn by a variety of personal reasons.[9] Its premise is that adults have an established concept of self and impliedly some confidence in the learning styles they adopt. Recognising this, after the initial introduction on how to use UTS Online, Lyndal was left to work with the system, knowing that Bill was two doors down to ask questions.

The fact that Bill and Lyndal were both members of the Faculty of Law assisted the mentoring process in a number ways. The obvious advantage was geographic closeness. However, more importantly, Bill had greater insight into what Lyndal was trying to achieve. Ramsden[10] and Biggs[11] recognise that teaching and learning differ according to discipline. A simple example was the desire to link High Court cases to the site. It was not one of the buttons included in the software. However, Bill could quickly explain to Lyndal how to achieve this process. The shared experience of the discipline enhanced the quality and efficiency of the mentoring process.

Part Three—UTS Online

UTS Online runs on a Blackboard v 5.5 platform. After a lengthy evaluation and benchmarking exercise, UTS moved to Blackboard web-based software in 2000, as a system to replace Top Class. UTS Online is extremely teacher and student ‘friendly’; efficient use of the tool by teachers to design and compile online environments can be achieved in a very short time.

Teachers can place text and HTML documents online without any specialist computer skills or knowledge; most of UTS Online’s design functions are intuitive.

A feature of UTS Online which has proved useful in most subjects (whether delivered wholly or partly online), is the electronic discussion group process, a process based on the concept that computer and other interactive media should offer students an opportunity for a conversation involving listening as well as talking on both sides.

Laurillard says of this concept that:

• there must be a continuing dialogue between teacher and student
• the dialogue must reveal both participants’ conceptions
• the teacher must analyse the relationship between the student’s and the target conception to determine the focus for the continuation of the dialogue
• the dialogue must be conducted so that it addresses all aspects of the learning process.[12]

Part Four—Insights about the Use of Online tools

A tenet central to Bill’s mentoring process is the caution issued to teachers by Paul Ramsden in Learning to Teach in Higher Education, to beware of naïve technological determinism, where he makes the following point:

No medium, however useful, can solve fundamental educational problems. Media cannot alter the way teachers understand teaching. In using media sensibly the least we can do is try not to reinforce existing pedagogical errors. (emphasis added) [13]

Lyndal used UTS Online for her Sale of Goods course. In terms of student evaluations, it was perhaps the most successful course ever conducted in her 12 years of teaching.

Some of the benefits of UTS Online included:

• Student access to overheads before class. This enabled them to annotate the overhead transparencies used in class and saved paper.
• The ability to upload student presentations to share amongst the group, again saving paper.
• The announcements page, so that students who had missed classes could still be informed of important administrative announcements.
• Hyperlinking new cases to enable students to read the most current cases not yet appearing in the case books or texts.
• Access to course information and assignments.
• The clear evolution of developing comfort with the use of technology, even for in-class presentations.

However, Lyndal was disappointed that:

• Students did not use the communication tool often.
• Students did not access the site regularly, so missed announcements.
• A failure on the behalf of the teacher to use key features within UTS Online such as the student drop box.

One of the explanations posited was that there was no assessment driving the use of the site. As Rowntree states, ‘the spirit and style of student assessment defines the de facto curriculum’[14] or as Ramsden puts it, ‘from our students’ point of view, assessment always defines the actual curriculum’.[15]

Another possible explanation for the limited use of UTS Online as a communication tool was that the students met with the teacher and each other twice a week in face to face classes.

Where to From Here?

This process has resulted in many positive outcomes. Included are the obvious ones such as a strengthening of the collegial relationship between Bill and Lyndal and an enhancement of Lyndal’s skill base. What it has also given Bill is an insight into how to best assist his next protégé.

The reflective process has resulted, for both Bill and Lyndal, in changes to the ways in which they will use UTS Online in the future to take full advantage of its capabilities.

The growing Faculty interest in UTS Online has resulted in an invitation being extended to a key UTS Online support team member to train those law academics that are interested in its use.

What is apparent from this is a strong move within the University to encourage more universal use of this tool. So much so that it can be predicted that within a short time frame, UTS students will expect courses to be online, whether the course is delivered face to face or off campus.

If that is so, it behoves law academics to investigate more thoroughly the success of on-line discussion groups. Do they equate to face to face discussions? Are they better? Could issues of gender and cultural bias be eliminated by using online discussion rather than face to face seminars? Is this process more equitable allowing for time shifting (whether for work or family reasons)?

The mentoring process has left Bill and Lyndal with these and many more unanswered questions. It has become apparent that this is but the first rung on a very steep ladder. Where it leads is yet uncertain. However, it is clear that future collaborative research is on the cards for the mentored and mentoree, together.

[1]This paper resulted from a presentation given by the authors, p.the Australasian Law Teachers’ Association Conference on 2 July 2001, University of South Pacific, Vanuatu.

[2]Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Technology, Sydney.

[3]Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Technology, Sydney.

[4]Le Brun, M. and Johnstone, R., The Quiet Revolution—Improving Student Learning in Law, Law Book Company, Sydney, 1994.

[5]Knowles, M., The Adult Learner—A Neglected Species, Gulf Publishing, Texas, 1990, p.31.

[6]Maslow, A.H., ‘Defense and Growth’ in The Psychology of Open Teaching and Learning, ed. Silberman, M.L., Little and Brown, Boston, 1972, p.50.

[7]Rogers, C.R., Client-Centred Therapy, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1951, p.388.

[8]Alexander, S., McKenzie, J., An Evaluation of Information Technology Projects in University Learning, Institute for Interactive Multimedia, University of Technology, Sydney, 1998, p.251.

[9]Brookfield, S., The Skillful Teacher, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1986.

[10]Ramsden, P. Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge, London, 1992.

[11]Biggs, J., From Theory to Practice: A Cognitive Systems Approach (1993) 12 Higher Education Research and Development 73.

[12]Laurillard, D., Rethinking University Teaching, Routledge, London, 1993.

[13]Ramsden, P., n.10, p.161.

[14]Rowntree, D., Assessing Students—How Shall we Know Them, Kogan Page, London, 1987 p.1.

[15]Ramsden, P., n.10, p.187.